Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Humanitarian Aid and Development as a Profitable Enterprise

Years ago, I was asked to write an essay for a class on Architectural Conservation. We had a guest lecture by renown American architectural historian Patrick Snadon who discussed the issues of preserving ugly modernist buildings in contemporary cities, and we were asked to write a reaction to the topic. My own paper focused on the economic issues in preserving American architecture, as so often city, state and federal governments are asked to inject funds to preserve historic sites when such funds simply never exist. I suggested that preservationists could utilize more accessible tools, to perhaps utilize strategies that engage the private sector rather than the public. Sports stadiums, football games, and city plazas typically have corporate sponsors, such as FedEx Field in Maryland and the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans. Large, wealthy companies vie for the opportunity to sponsor popular sports facilities and in the end, everybody wins.

So why not do this with historic buildings or entire neighborhoods? Why couldn't Procter & Gamble initiate a large-scale urban development effort? Private companies have explored this in the past, such as when Walt Disney led the design and planning of Celebration, Florida. Such actions would facilitate brand loyalty, the companies could plan to include programs to increase their recruiting pool - such as special academic programs in schools that focus on product design or computer programming - and governments are less strained. Again, everybody wins.

Ikea's Town Plan, London UK

A few weeks ago I read about the massive retailer IKEA pursuing an urban development scheme in London, exploring town planning and development with real-estate company LandProp. Although some may find it outrageous, I greatly applaud IKEA's interest in expanding their penchant for refined design and cost-cutting production into the domain of urban development. Notably, this new town will not include an IKEA retailer. Around the same time, I also learned about a large grant from IKEA of 62 Million USD provided to UNHCR for development purpose in the Dadaab refugee camps. So what does this mean?

Like the idea I had in grad school about corporations spearheading architectural preservation and urban development, I ask why can't this happen within humanitarian aid and international development? Why is it the sole responsibility of cash-strapped governments and NGOs to aid those in need, to overcome poverty, and to develop sustainable economies of scale? In many ways, the idea of doing this without financial stakeholders is absolutely ludicrous. If a company such as Ikea were willing to invest in the reconstruction of a city such as Kabul, the environmental development of Hargeissa Somaliland, or to invest in a neighborhood in Detroit, they could access a massive labor-pool, expand their customer base with deeply-rooted brand loyalty, and lock themselves into a more profitable future.

What I think is critical, is that this process does not need to be philanthropic. Not everyone needs to be the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It could be a profitable enterprise. The risk is that we would live in a world where every city, town, and street would be named after Gilette razor-blades, Ivory Soap, and CocaCola but then again, we already live in a world where professional sports and entertainment are dominated by the same vestiges of capitalism. Buses and subways are covered in advertising, and movies feature endless product placements. Would it actually be all that different?

So in the end, I ask if it is time to radically upgrade how humanitarian aid and development is undertaken. If laissez-faire ideologies are going to dominate the global economy, then why not utilize their embedded leverage, to push for the expansion of corporations to integrate all facets of daily life.

Admittedly the concept goes against my own personal sensibilities. Maybe its a bad idea, maybe it would create an international catastrophe of unparalleled proportion, but then again, maybe it could work.

Popular Posts

For decades our television screens have been dominated by images of ragged people, hopelessly isolated within political limbo as destitute refugees. Movies describe refugee camps as exotic edge-of-the-earth locales full of victimized dark-skinned people. Magazines and websites occasionally release an article on a brand new shelter technology, solar stove, or water pump that is expected to change the future of these settlements.
Although often inaccurate, there is some real world legitimacy to these images. A decent example of the typical chaos can be found at this moment in Nigeria. But this is not always, even often, the case. While camp conditions are often poor, there have been strides toward the improvement of camp planning, most notably in Turkey. Many seek funding to further improve existing camps, such as found in this request for assistance to displaced South Sudanese living in Ethiopia. But overall, regardless of funding or geography, the progress of change has been sl…

Just prior to my last stint of working in Somalia, I purchased a small consumer drone to use as social research tool. Unfortunately the landscape had changed drastically since my last time in Mogadishu, and it was impossible to use, in particular because I am terrible at flying the damn thing. But I have since invested many hours into piloting the UAV to explore its utility as a research tool for urban planning and design.

Last weekend, a small disaster took place when I lost the signal to the UAV. The drone drifted out of sight and crash landed. I had no idea where. It took several hours to find (on a building rooftop, I couldn't see it, but I found its WIFI signal), and even longer to recover (24 hours). At some point on Twitter, Constantine Samaras, raised a significant point: Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if I was in a no drone zone. But what does would that look like?
— Costa Samaras (@CostaSamaras) August 9, 2014

I was deeply honored to give the commencement speech to the graduating class of 2017 at the Art Academy of Cincinnati. These last few days, I am now continually reflecting upon the unique and powerful proposition this school makes to the world. There is no other school like it. The only other college to which I can compare it is the mythical Black Mountain College of the 1960s that produced revolutionary minds such as John Cage. To plagiarize someone else’s story, the Art Academy (AAC) doesn’t merely graduate artists or designers, it graduates the critical but hard to find team member of every successful business: "there are three kinds of people you want to launch a business: the person with the idea, the person with the financial sense, and the person who makes you say 'what the fuck?' The last is the person who can rip ideas apart, remix them, and flip everything upside down to generate breakthroughs that no one else can see." The last kind of person is particul…